It's well known that Java is slooooooow. I am not surprised at all.
However, it'll be interesting to see how xmlsec will do. Will you mind
to share the results of your evaluation?
Aleksey
David Wen wrote:
Unfortunately, our case is 2).
We are using Apache XML tool kit, .....we'll give your tool a try.
David Wen
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:32:35 -0700 Aleksey Sanin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, it depends on the situation:
1) You are signing an XML file and want to
have XML signature in a
*separate* XML file.
In this case, you might sign the XML file
using external XML signature
and then this file will be treated as a
binary file (i.e., never
parsed->no need
in c14n)
2) You have an XML file and you want to
insert XML signature in the
*same* file (or construct a new XML file
that contains original file
*and*
thew signature).
In this case you must do cannonicalization
because c14n is a way to
"serialize"
XML document from DOM representation to a
binary file.
BTW, what kind of file are you trying to sign
and do you use xmlsec library?
Some people did performance testing for xmlsec
and it showed pretty good
results (for example, signing 10 MB file in 55
sec).
Aleksey.
David Wen wrote:
Hi,
We have an application where the XML file is
huge and it takes hours to canonize it but the
signature is very fast. My understanding of
the
XML Dsig spec is that, although the
canonization
algorithm is mandatory, but it is ok to not
apply
it, right?
Thanks!
David Wen
_______________________________________________
xmlsec mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.aleksey.com/mailman/listinfo/xmlsec
_______________________________________________
xmlsec mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.aleksey.com/mailman/listinfo/xmlsec
_______________________________________________
xmlsec mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.aleksey.com/mailman/listinfo/xmlsec
